Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is now being used across scientific research workflows, from data extraction and code generation to literature synthesis and manuscript drafting. Scientific journals and professional organizations agree that authors should disclose AI assistance. But disclosure that treats all AI use equally with a single generic declaration reveals little about the nature of AI's influence on evidence generation. Polishing grammar carries a different risk than extracting outcomes from clinical notes, classifying pathology, or making causal inference. We propose ATTEST (AI Transparency Tiered by Evidentiary Stakes), a framework that evaluates AI assistance by its consequences. ATTEST classifies AI use into eight broad categories of functions, each scored at one of four risk tiers (Low, Medium, High, Very High). The framework is operationalized by a declaration checklist that authors complete at submission. Within this tiered system, we propose minimum reporting standards by function, cross-cutting requirements, and obligations for reviewers and editors. The goal is to make AI's role in evidence generation transparent to readers, reviewers, and editors so they can evaluate the integrity of scientific findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: